Gujarat High Court
Shinde Parvatiben Bhima Piraji Wd/O ... vs Chandarbhai Kalubhai Dinde on 10 January, 2024
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/100/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 100 of 2024
==========================================================
SHINDE PARVATIBEN BHIMA PIRAJI WD/O LATE SHINDE BHIMA PIRAJI
Versus
CHANDARBHAI KALUBHAI DINDE
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MATAFER R PANDE(3952) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 10/01/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. The challenge is given to the claim
petition, which came to be dismissed on
02.09.2023 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Auxi.), Surat in Motor Accident Claim Petition
No.394 of 2011.
2. Advocate Mr. Matafer R.Pande for the
appellant submitted that the matter was
registered in 2011. The matter was pending in
another Tribunal, thereafter the matter was
transferred to the Tribunal which has dismissed
the petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/100/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2024
undefined
2.1 Advocate Mr. Pande submitted that while
dismissing the petition, it was observed that
during the pendency of the matter, the applicant
was not present. The legal heirs of original
applicant has produced an application at Exh.33
declaring the death. The death certificate and
Adhar Card was produced along with the
application with a prayer to join them as legal
heirs.
2.2 Advocate Mr. Pande submitted that the
Court had joined heirs as a party and the
claimant had prepared to produce the evidence on
record; however, on 06.02.2023, by order below
Exh.1, the right of the evidence came to be
closed, and, thus the learned Tribunal has
observed that the legal heirs of the original
applicant had failed to prove the vehicular
accident, and without entering into the merits of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/100/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2024
undefined
the case had decided the issue nos.1 and 2 in
negative, and answering the issue no.3 dismissed
the petition.
2.3 Advocate Mr. Pande referred to the
judgment of Bharatbhai Narsinghbhai Chaudhary and
Others v. Malek Rafik Malek Himmatbhai, reported
in 2011 (2) G.L.R. 1324, to submit that no claim
petition ought to have been dismissed without
decision on merits. Mr. Pande further stated that
the application moved by the legal heirs itself
suggests that they were willing to proceed with
the matter to produce the evidence on record.
2.4 Advocate Mr. Pande further stated that
if the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that
the petitioner had not come forward to produce
evidence, then as laid down in the case of Jai
Prakash Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.
reported in (2010) 2 SCC 607, could have called
for the information under Form-54, and should
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/100/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2024
undefined
have decided the matter on merits, or rather for
giving an opportunity should have closed the
stage of the petitioner, and should have posted
it for the stage of the opponents for producing
the evidence, which would have given enough time
and opportunity for the petitioner to move an
application for reopening the stage of leading
evidence.
3. In the judgment of Bharatbhai
Narsinghbhai Chaudhary (supra), it has been held
that the learned Tribunal has no power to dismiss
the Claim Petition without taking into
consideration the object behind the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, i.e. to provide adequate
compensation to the claimants. The relevant part
of the above decision is reproduced herein
below:-
"A District Judge, who functions as a
Claims Tribunal, is not only within
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/100/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2024
undefined
the administrative control of the
High Court, but also subordinate to
it under Section 115 of the Code. A
Claims Tribunal is a 'Court' although
with limited jurisdiction and not a
mere 'Tribunal'. The powers of appeal
given to the High Court under the Act
against the decision of the Tribunal
constituted under the Act, will
definitely lead to conclusion that
the said Tribunal is subordinate to
the High Court and the nomenclature
given to the Motor Vehicles Tribunal
that, it is a Tribunal, will not take
it out of the purview of the Civil
Court. (Para 5)
Under Rule 3, therefore, even if,
neither party appears when the suit
is called for hearing, it is not
compulsory for the Court to dismiss
the suit. The Court may adjourn the
suit. In the event of dismissal of
the suit, it is open to the plaintiff
to apply for restoration of the suit
and the Court may set aside the order
of dismissal and restore the suit. An
order dismissing a suit for default
of appearance of parties is not a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/100/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2024
undefined
"decree" under Sec. 2(2), and hence,
is not appealable. An order of
dismissal of a suit based on
erroneous application of Rule 3 can
be said to be a "case decided" within
the meaning of Sec. 115 of the Code.
Hence, where the Court has acted with
illegality or with material
irregularity in the exercise of
jurisdiction, a revision would like
against such an order. (Para 5.7)
The provisions of the Code are
applicable to govern the procedure in
a Motor Accident Claim case as
provided under Rule 229 of the
Gujarat Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
There is no separate procedural law,
made applicable to conduct the Motor
Accident Claim petitions. Therefore,
application for restoration, made
under Order 9, Rule 4, in the instant
case, is absolute, legal and
sustainable, and therefore, the
revision, arisen out of such order,
passed below such application, is
also undoubtedly maintainable. (Para
5.11)"
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/100/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2024
undefined
On perusal of the application and
other relevant papers, it appears
that the restoration application was
filed by the applicants on 22nd
November, 2001 and another
restoration application is filed on
28th January, 2004, under Order 9,
Rule 4 of the Code, wherein, the
applicants have described the reasons
and tried to justify their case for
restoration of the application. On
perusal of the papers, it apperas
that the applicants are poor persons
and coming from the lower strata of
the society as they belong to Tribal
community. Therefore, instead of
entering into the technicalities and
with a view to do the substantial
justice, the Court below was required
to adopt lenient view. (Para 6)."
The object of the Act, which is a
benevolent provision or social
welfare legislation under which,
compensation is paid, has to be
considered liberally and the
intention of the Legislature enacting
such provisions to achieve the said
object, has to be considered. While
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/100/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2024
undefined
interpretation of the provisions of
social welfare legislation, the
Courts should adopt an approach in
such a manner, that in any event, it
fulfills the policy of the
legislation. The interpretation to be
adopted, should be more beneficial to
a person in whose favour and in whose
interest the Act has been passed.
While dealing with application under
the Act, the interpretation has to be
for the benefit of the poor victims.
It is, therefore, necessary to take a
constructive and positive attitude in
interpreting the provisions of these
types and determine the main aim or
object of a particular Act in
question for adjudication before the
Court. (5.13)
The Act and the Rules framed
thereunder also do not empower the
Claims Tribunal to dispose an
application merely for default of the
applicant without arriving at
findings on merits of the case, after
the stage of framing issues. In the
instant case, issues were framed, and
thereafter, the learned Tribunal was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/100/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2024
undefined
required to decide the case on merits
with a view to provide substantial
justice, instead of entering into the
technicalities. (5.14)"
4. The learned Tribunal could have followed
the judgment in the case of Jai Prakash Vs.
National Insurance Company Ltd. reported in
(2010) 2 SCC 607 and could have decided the
compensation relying upon Form-54. In the case of
Bharatbhai Narsinghbhai Chaudhary (supra), it has
been further held as under:-
"The Act and the Rules framed
thereunder also do not empower the
Claims Tribunal to dispose an
application merely for default of the
applicant without arriving at
findings on merits of the case, after
the stage of framing issues. In the
instant case, issues were framed, and
thereafter, the learned Tribunal was
required to decide the case on merits
with a view to provide substantial
justice instead of entering into the
technicalities."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/100/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2024
undefined
5. The Tribunal ought to have kept in mind
that the rules are made to strengthen the powers
of the Court/Tribunal. Every effort should be
made to hear the case on merits after the stage
of framing of issues. The Courts are lauded as
they are to do substantial justice. Even if the
matter gets dismissed for default on some
technical ground or because of some carelessness
or inability or inadvertence of the applicant,
the Claims Tribunal can be informed of the social
object of the Motor Vehicle Act and should have
condoned such acts of the applicant and ought to
have restored the matter for hearing on merits.
6. The impugned order itself suggests that
the learned Tribunal has not entered into the
merits of the case, as the petitioner had moved
an application below Exh.33, and also a prayer
was made declaring the death of the original
claimant and even a prayer was made to join them
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/100/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2024
undefined
as legal heirs.
7. Taking into consideration the reasons
given hereinabove, the learned Tribunal has
failed to take into consideration the object of
benevolent act. The learned Tribunal is always
required to decide the claim petition on merits,
and in a condition if at all, after giving a
reasonable time, the claimant himself would not
be in a position to adduce evidence, then the
learned Tribunal ought to have called for Form
No.54 from the police for verifying the facts and
should have granted the compensation amount
accordingly. The Tribunal ought to have kept in
mind that the rules are made to strengthen the
powers of the Court/Tribunal. Every effort should
be made to hear on merits after the stage of
framing of issues.
8. In the result, the order dated
02.09.2023 passed in MACP No.394 of 2011 by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/100/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2024
undefined
M.A.C.T (Aux.) Surat is quashed and set aside,
and the matter is ordered to be restored in the
file of the concerned Tribaunl with a direction
that the opportunity be granted to all the
parties to the litigation to produce evidence on
record. Let the matter be decided on merits and
be concluded preferably within six months from
the date of writ of this Court.
Direct service is permitted.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Pankaj
